Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 314 posts

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#241

Post by zygimantasdev »

edejong wrote: post #77

Harvard Response: "The panel declared “considerations of environmental impact” out of the scope of their recommendations. This is a missed opportunity because climate change and environmental degradation have serious effects on human health, and thus is important to consider when making recommendations on diet, even if this is addressed separately from direct effects on individual health." My response: should we appl…

"climate change and environmental degradation have serious effects on human health" - can you elaborate? Do you mean mental health?

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#243

Post by sparrc »

remarkEon wrote: post #235
sparrc wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people say this to me but I've never seen evidence that it's true. In my experience most vegans don't do it for health reasons. That being said I do agree that there are huge differences in types of carbs consumed....but that only goes to say that the problem isn't simply 'carbs', it's processed sugars.

I have never seen a vegan who is what I would consider "fit" - and my standard is not necessarily an elite athlete, but, let's say, "able to handle themselves in a bar fight". Frankly a lot of them look rather sickly. I have however met a lot of people who are Paleo or Carnivore who are in incredible shape. I'm inclined to believe that at least some of this is cultural - Paleo/Carnivore folks tend to be more strict a…

Sorry this just made me lol, lookup "gamechangers" and watch the trailer.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#244

Post by sparrc »

geggam wrote: post #177
sparrc wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are 3 orders of living things: plants, funghi, and animals. Animal rights is concerned with all animals, not with all living things. Every major dietician association says the same thing about veg diets, that they are healthy for all stages of life, including pregnancy, infancy (excepting breastmilk of course), and early childhood. There's no burden on me to change your behavior, you can do whatever you want.

>There's no burden on me to change your behavior, you can do whatever you want. agreed I will add that the food chain should remain natural. When I die I would get eaten except humans today pump their old body full of toxins and put it inside a coffin inside a concrete box.... This breaks the natural cycle. Eat or be eaten ;)

The food chain is not a scientific concept, it's useful for teaching children and for Disney movies but it's probably time for you to evolve your reasoning.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#245

Post by dang »

codr7 wrote: post #233
dang wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, especially on ultra-worn flamewar topics. We're trying to avoid those here, because the discussions they lead to are always predictable and get nastier as they go along. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I do realize I'm balancing a thin line by even touching the subject, but I have no intention of starting wars. I find it highly questionable to derive happiness from killing animals, and I think most people do once they find the courage to look reality straight in the eyes. If we can't even talk about it, how are we ever going make progress?

Flamewars on HN don't help make progress. Maybe talking to people in person would help.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#246

Post by tomp »

scotty79 wrote: post #239
tomp wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't all 3 of those conflate red and processed meat? Not very sciency...

Isn't the most red meat consumed also processed? Don't know. Just asking. If so it would make sense to use it in research.

Maybe? Probably most food consumed is processed... but the advice should then be, eat unprocessed food (salad, steak, fruit not fruit juice, ...) In addition, some ways of processing food are likely less harmful... e.g. pickling vegetables and drying meat (without using nitrites, such as certain traditional EU PDO meats like Prosciutto di Parma).

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#247

Post by remarkEon »

sparrc wrote: post #243
remarkEon wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never seen a vegan who is what I would consider "fit" - and my standard is not necessarily an elite athlete, but, let's say, "able to handle themselves in a bar fight". Frankly a lot of them look rather sickly. I have however met a lot of people who are Paleo or Carnivore who are in incredible shape. I'm inclined to believe that at least some of this is cultural - Paleo/Carnivore folks tend to be more strict a…

Sorry this just made me lol, lookup "gamechangers" and watch the trailer.

I’ll pass, thanks. I have enough evidence, anecdotal and from my physician and from experience, that a plant-only diet would be extremely unhealthy for me. I’ll stick to my steaks.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#248

Post by remarkEon »

sparrc wrote: post #173
geggam wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying plant life isnt life ? https://www.the-scientist.com/features/plant-talk-38209 >It's more accurate to say that animal rights groups believe that the lives of animals are more important than your taste buds. My belief is I am healthier eating animals. Burden is on you to prove me wrong.

There are 3 orders of living things: plants, funghi, and animals. Animal rights is concerned with all animals, not with all living things. Every major dietician association says the same thing about veg diets, that they are healthy for all stages of life, including pregnancy, infancy (excepting breastmilk of course), and early childhood. There's no burden on me to change your behavior, you can do whatever you want.

>excepting breastmilk of course

Seems to be a ... rather glaring exception.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#249

Post by nearbuy »

deegles wrote: post #214
nearbuy wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One piece of advice that won't change: maintaining a calorie deficit causes weight loss. It's a basic property of physics that the extra energy used has to come from somewhere if don't eat enough to cover it. Tracking your calorie deficit/surplus isn't the easiest method, but unlike fad diets, it's guaranteed to work (provided, of course, that you stick with it and count accurately).

“Calorie counting doesn’t work for you because you’re not good enough at counting calories” frames the problem in a way impossible to disprove. Maybe people aren’t arguing that they’re breaking the laws of physics, but that they’re having trouble with estimating the caloric surplus in the first place.

I've used calorie counting before, and I don't think it's hard to do - just a bit inconvenient. Having a little digital scale helps a lot. Measuring out the calories in a recipe can be a pain, but people tend to repeat the same recipes. It's inconvenient in the beginning, but gets better once you've already calculated most of your standard recipes. There are apps that will help you track it. Pack a lunch or buy something with a known number of calories.

If you only rarely go out to restaurants, just give the meal your best estimate and don't worry about it too much. If you eat out every day, it'll be hard to estimate. Fast food chains are often (ironically?) helpful here because many of them list the calories in their meals.

You don't really need to estimate your calorie expenditure. Just keep your activity level roughly even, count calorie intake, and track your weight. If your weight doesn't decrease after a couple weeks, subtract a couple hundred calories from your intake. Eventually, you'll get a deficit and your weight will decrease.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#250

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

arcticbull wrote: post #207
tobib wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note that I am not a doctor, though, so take this information with the proper grain of salt. In moderation though, too much sodium is bad for you

Evidence does not appear to bear that out. "... a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in the American Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure." [1] [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-t...

The relative amounts of sodium and potassium in blood regulate blood pressure. Too much sodium can increase blood pressure and high blood pressure is a major cause of cardiovascular disease.

This is a well-understood process with much data to back it up and it will take a lot more than one meta-analysis of 6k people to provide evidence against it.

Note also a common mistake of studies that test correlations between a factor such as salt and a health outcome like CVD or death: often, the people at most high risk are already cutting down on the substance.

For example (I can't find the reference now, sorry) a study that reported that moderate drinking had better health outcomes than not drinking at all included in its study population individuals who had cut alcohol consumption completely because of pre-existing (at the time of the study) disease. So obviously those people had worse health outcomes than the ones that drank moderately.

This can skew results something bad. If you're testing whether cutting down on salt correlates with a reduction to CVD and some of your study population have cut down on salt because they already have CVD, the association between cutting down on salt and good outcomes will appear reduced in your data. In the first study reported in Scientific American in the link you provide it's hard to know whether this is the case because they don't link to the study (typical). The next study reported by SA, where the amount of sodium in urine was measured, seems to have suffered from this error: it found that cutting down on salt increased risk of dying from heart disease. Not benefitting from reducing salt intake is one thing, but dying more of it? That takes hellalot of explaining!

The point is that just because a study found one result doesn't mean everything changes overnight.

It is important to understand that when there is a large body of evidence supporting one hypothesis ("too much salt is not good for you") it takes an equally large body of evidence to reject that hypothesis. A single study, even a meta-analysis, doesn't cut it. It will take many years and a lot of work before the evidence SA presents is credible enough to change our understanding. And this is as it should be.

Post reply on HN